Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies >
Zero-verbal Existential Construction: Syntactic and Semantic Features and Cognitive Interpretation
Zero-verbal Existential Construction is a special type of Chinese Existential Construction. This paper classifies Zero-verbal Existential Construction through the semantic relations between NPL and NP in space and explores the syntactic and semantic features of Zero-verbal Existential Construction. Specifically, Zero-verbal Existential Construction is usually formed as ‘NPL NP’ structure and it mainly includes three types: partially-occupied ‘NPL NP,’ fully-quantitative ‘NPL NP’ and all-around ‘NPL NP.’ Extreme spatiality, which is reflected in the spatiality of the scene of ‘existence’ encoded by the constructional constituents of ‘NPL NP’ structure, is the most prominent semantic feature of Zero-verbal Existential Construction. Within the framework of cognitive linguistics, this paper claims that Zero-verbal Existential Construction conforms to the principle of cognitive economy, and it is a construction based on ‘Container Schema’ and expressing the scene of ‘existence’ through the grounded quantitative structure. Due to the high degree of spatiality in Chinese and Zero-verbal Existential Construction, ‘NPL NP’ structure expressing the scene of ‘existence’ is not allowed in many other languages.
CAO Yang, TONG Jiawei . Zero-verbal Existential Construction: Syntactic and Semantic Features and Cognitive Interpretation[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022 , 22(3) : 131 -139 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2022.03.015
| [1] | Jackendoff R. 1991. Semantic Structures[M]. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. |
| [2] | Lakoff G.& M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought[M]. New York: Basic Books. |
| [3] | Langacker R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites[M]. Stanford: Stanford University Press. |
| [4] | Langacker R.W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction[M]. New York: Oxford University Press. |
| [5] | 储泽祥等. 1997. 汉语存在句的历时性考察[J]. 古汉语研究(4):13-20. |
| [6] | 储泽祥、 王寅. 2008. 空间实体的可居点与后置方位词的选择[J]. 语言研究 28(4):50-62. |
| [7] | 董成如、 许明. 2014. 存在句的语篇功能研究[J]. 外语学刊(6):70-74. |
| [8] | 杜瑞银. 1982. “定名谓语”存在句[J]. 汉语学习(4):9-15. |
| [9] | 杜世洪. 2018. 关于单维时间概念的多维空间语言表达的思考[J]. 英语研究(2):90-102. |
| [10] | 高航. 2020a. 激进构式语法视角下名词谓语句的跨语言研究[J]. 现代外语 43(4):463-476. |
| [11] | 高航. 2020b. 类型学视角下的名词谓语句考察[J]. 外语教学 41(3):16-22. |
| [12] | 姜望琪. 2005. Zipf与省力原则[J]. 同济大学学报(社会科学版)(1):87-95. |
| [13] | 金明艳. 2013. 韩汉语存现句对比研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学. |
| [14] | 胡文泽. 2004. 汉语存现句及相关并列紧缩结构的认知功能语法分析[J]. 语言教学与研究(4):1-13. |
| [15] | 雷涛. 1993. 存在句的范围、构成和分类[J]. 中国语文(4):244-251. |
| [16] | 娄婉娜. 2018. 汉泰语存在句对比及教学研究[D]. 武汉: 华中师范大学. |
| [17] | 牛保义. 2015. 认知语法情境植入研究综述[J]. 外语学刊(5):16-22. |
| [18] | 潘文. 2006. 现代汉语存现句的多维研究[M]. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社. |
| [19] | 齐沪扬. 1996. 表示静态位置的一种零动词[J]. 南京师大学报(社会科学版)(3):125-131. |
| [20] | 齐沪扬. 1998. 现代汉语的空间系统[J]. 世界汉语教学(1):22-33. |
| [21] | 阮雪梅. 2019. 汉越存现句语法结构对比分析[D]. 天津: 天津师范大学. |
| [22] | 史又今. 2018. 汉西存在句式对比及相关偏误分析[D]. 上海: 上海外国语大学. |
| [23] | 宋玉柱. 1982. 定心谓语存在句[J]. 汉语学习(3):27-34. |
| [24] | 宋玉柱. 1988. 名词谓语存在句[J]. 徐州师范学院学报(4):87-90. |
| [25] | 帖伊、 覃修桂. 2019. 体认语言学视角下的名词谓语句研究:构式界定与认知动因[J]. 外国语文 35(5):22-29. |
| [26] | 王建军. 2005. 时空在汉语存在句中的表现形态[J]. 语文研究(4):15-18. |
| [27] | 王文斌. 2013. 论英语的时间性特质与汉语的空间性特质[J]. 外语教学与研究 45(2):163-173. |
| [28] | 文旭. 2014. 语言的认知基础[M]. 北京: 科学出版社. |
| [29] | 文旭、 匡芳涛. 2004. 语言空间系统的认知阐释[J]. 四川外语学院学报 20(3):81-86. |
| [30] | 文旭、 刘先清. 2004. 英语倒装句的图形背景论分析[J]. 外语教学与研究(6):438-443. |
| [31] | 张克定. 2009. 图形-背景论视角下的汉语存现构式[J]. 外国语文 25(5):8-12. |
| [32] | 张克定. 2021. 抽象空间方位关系构式的结构特征与认知理据[J]. 现代外语 44(3):360-371. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
